Committee advances bill requiring judges to read statutory immigration advisement verbatim in plea hearings

The Assembly Public Safety Committee on Tuesday voted to pass Senate Bill 281, a measure by Senator Sasha Renee Perez that would require judges in California criminal cases to recite the exact statutory immigration advisement used since 1977 before a defendant enters a plea.

Supporters say the bill is intended to stop judges from paraphrasing the advisement and telling defendants they “will” face immigration consequences rather than that they “may” face such consequences. "The court shall administer the following advisement on the record to the defendant," said Ignacio Hernandez, representing the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, quoting the statute and urging the committee to require judges to stick to the long‑standing language.

The bill’s sponsor presented SB 281 on the senator’s behalf and said the proposal does not change the substance of the advisement; it only requires judges to read the statutory text verbatim. The presenter said the author has committed to adding clarifying language to make clear the bill will not be applied retroactively.

Opponents, including Nina Salerno of the California District Attorneys Association and Tamar Tokat of the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, said requiring verbatim language could undermine finality of convictions. "In the last few years alone, we have had several cases where valid convictions were reversed years after the defendant had already pleaded guilty because years later he made a motion to withdraw his plea," Tokat said, adding that in some cases victims and surviving family members were retraumatized when long‑settled pleas were reopened.

Committee members questioned both sides about how courts evaluate motions to vacate pleas and whether the bill would change that standard. The sponsor and technical witnesses said motions to vacate still require a showing of prejudice and that not all misstatements lead to withdrawal of a plea.

After discussion, Assemblymember Gonzales moved to pass SB 281, with Assemblymember Winn seconding. The roll call included recorded votes in the hearing transcript (examples captured): Schultz — aye; "Elanise" — no; Gonzales — aye; Lackey — no; Win — aye; Sharp Collins — I. Later in the meeting additional members cast the remaining votes recorded in the wrap‑up and the measure ultimately passed in committee.

Support and opposition were both broad: public defenders’ associations and immigrant‑rights organizations testified in favor; several county district attorneys and a coalition of community groups testified with concerns.

SB 281 does not itself alter the remedies available to defendants under existing law; sponsors said the bill is intended only to restore consistent courtroom practice and reduce confusion. The author’s commitment to a non‑retroactivity clarification was discussed repeatedly.

The committee’s recorded action: a motion to pass SB 281 carried after roll call; opponents asked for amendments to address appellate and motion‑to‑vacate concerns and the author indicated willingness to continue negotiations.